Another week has passed. More protests & more apocolyptic reporting of scuffles as if British students were an Al-Qaeda cell bent on the destruction of western civilisation.
The coverage is farcical.
On Sky we virtually get the Met's official live commentary from some rent-a-cop whose explaining that 'containment' is fair.
We've got a Home Secretary who doesn't think her job is to ask the Police questions about their tactics & who reports what she has been told by the Police absolutely uncritically.
We've got Sir Paul Stephenson thinking about adding water cannon's to his arsenal of toys for the boys in blue. O and we've got a rabid, foaming at the mouth response to the possibility that Camilla might have been poked with a stick. It's the end of the world as we know it.
No one in the press seems to want to ask any awkward questions. The police version of events is accepted virtually without question. The most serious injury to a police officer was caused when he fell off his horse but it was reported as if protesters had dragged the poor chap off & beaten him when on the ground. In the meantime protesters were getting whacked about by the police.
One protester, Alfie Meadows, ended up requiring a brain operation after being clubbed on the head and even more disgustingly was the Police initial tried to stop him getting hospital treatment at the same hospital as injured police officers (according to his mother). This is the subject of an IPCC whitewash...sorry report.
I appriciate that policing demonstrations is a difficult job but that's what Sir Paul Stephenson and his colleagues are paid to do. There may be a minority of idiots on any demonstration but current police strategy seems to be to punish everyone via 'kettling' in order to put people off protesting. Why would you want to come on a protest if you're going to spend hours being kettled in the freezing cold instead of being allowed to demonstrate? So what does kettling do except discourage ordinary people from protesting but fail to put off the more extreme elements.
Also I've been kettled and all it does is make ordinary people increasingly angry & frustrated. It's not designed to calm things down at all. To then charge kettled protesters on horse back is aggressive & potentially dangerous.
So my questions are:
Has any journalist checked police statements about people being free to leave various kettles at any time v the reality on the ground?
What is the purpose of kettling? What do the police want to achieve by its use?
Why were horses allowed to charge protesters inside kettles? Who decides when to let police horses charge & what is the thinking behind their use?
Why did the police try & prevent Alfie Meadows getting medical treatment? What facilities did the Metropolitan Police provide for those injured within a 'kettle' to get out & receive medical attention?
Has anyone checked the police figures for their injuries & the nature of these injuries?
Have the police being briefing journalists that disabled protester Jody McIntyre was 'throwing things' to excuse dragging him out of his wheelchair? My reading of the BBC's awful interview with him on Newsnight suggests that this is what's been happening? If so do they have any proof?
What lessons have the police learnt from these demonstrations? Are we going to see tougher response? If so what will that consist of?
Have the police asked for water cannons? Have the Met talked to the Northern Irish Police about 'borrowing' a couple? What would be the rules for their use?
Why does the Home Secretary not think her job is reviewing police performance on demonstrations? Does she check the police version of events against anything except the Daily Mail?
A few questions for now but fundamentally I want the British press who should have learnt their lessons on the lengths to which the police will spin from the post-Hillsborough (and post-Thomlinson/De Menzes) attempts to blacken the names of victims in order to cover up their cock-ups to stop taking the police version of events as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Nadine Dorries - Attack is Not Always The Best Form of Defence
Nadine Dorries is the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire. A pretty safe Conservative seat. She's not my MP. If it was not for her bizarre behaviour then I would probably never have heard of her.
However she has developed a habit of attacking people who criticise her via their blogs with unnecessary venom. The two main victims seems to be @bloggerheads and @humphreycushion (to use their Twitter names).
In the case of @humphreycushion Nadine Dorries leaked her proper name to the press & seemed to imply through Nadine's own blogs that @humphreycushion's medical condition was either nonsense or should prevent her from...well from doing pretty much anything. Certainly not tweeting.
Nadine's issue with @bloggerheads seems to be that he is stalking her. This video, posted by @bloggerheads, is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjOr9vYg9dQ
The thing is Nadine's problem seems to be that @bloggerheads, who isn't an official journalist, is doing a journalistic job. Through his blog he has - and is - keeping Nadine's statements as a candidate and an MP under scruntiny. There is nothing about her personal life there. No pictures of her house. No threats. Nadine Dorries has claimed that she has called the police (and in her latest blog threatened @bloggerheads with them) but so far she has been unable to produce any evidence of either genuine stalking or her reports to the police.
It seems to me that Nadine wouldn't be behaving this way if @bloggerheads was an 'official' journalist for the BBC or even for a Bedfordshire local newspaper but because he is *just* a blogger she seems to think it is stalking.
Well Nadine welcome to the 21st century. The national press has become relatively easy to manage these days & people like @bloggerheads are doing a fine job of making sure that MPs can't get away with being 'economical with the truth'.
It might not be nice, in fact it might be plain irritating but if Nadine was to stop seeing @bloggerheads (and others) as 'just' bloggers & started to see them as - to be portentous for a moment - citizen journalists then she might start to behave in a slightly less eccentric manner. Why should MPs (of any party) be allowed to make statements that are incorrect and why can't I - as a voter - ask questions?
Let's face it attack is not always the best form of defence.
However she has developed a habit of attacking people who criticise her via their blogs with unnecessary venom. The two main victims seems to be @bloggerheads and @humphreycushion (to use their Twitter names).
In the case of @humphreycushion Nadine Dorries leaked her proper name to the press & seemed to imply through Nadine's own blogs that @humphreycushion's medical condition was either nonsense or should prevent her from...well from doing pretty much anything. Certainly not tweeting.
Nadine's issue with @bloggerheads seems to be that he is stalking her. This video, posted by @bloggerheads, is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjOr9vYg9dQ
The thing is Nadine's problem seems to be that @bloggerheads, who isn't an official journalist, is doing a journalistic job. Through his blog he has - and is - keeping Nadine's statements as a candidate and an MP under scruntiny. There is nothing about her personal life there. No pictures of her house. No threats. Nadine Dorries has claimed that she has called the police (and in her latest blog threatened @bloggerheads with them) but so far she has been unable to produce any evidence of either genuine stalking or her reports to the police.
It seems to me that Nadine wouldn't be behaving this way if @bloggerheads was an 'official' journalist for the BBC or even for a Bedfordshire local newspaper but because he is *just* a blogger she seems to think it is stalking.
Well Nadine welcome to the 21st century. The national press has become relatively easy to manage these days & people like @bloggerheads are doing a fine job of making sure that MPs can't get away with being 'economical with the truth'.
It might not be nice, in fact it might be plain irritating but if Nadine was to stop seeing @bloggerheads (and others) as 'just' bloggers & started to see them as - to be portentous for a moment - citizen journalists then she might start to behave in a slightly less eccentric manner. Why should MPs (of any party) be allowed to make statements that are incorrect and why can't I - as a voter - ask questions?
Let's face it attack is not always the best form of defence.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
People's Budget to Eton's Budget
In 1909, the then Chancellor David Lloyd-George said this:
"This is a war budget. It is for raising money to wage an implacable war against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty and the wretchedness and human degredation that always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests."
He was putting forward what is known to historians as 'The People's Budget'. It put forward increases in taxation, including a land tax, to pay for the foundations of what would become the Welfare State: free school meals, the first pensions, Labour exchange and National Insurance.
As usual the Conservative Party fought to have these tax increases thrown out, using their House of Lords majority to hold off the changes. The land tax was dropped (and has never been re-introduced) but after fighting another general election in 1910 and passing the 1911 Parliament Bill - to prevent the House of Lords using its Tory majority to fend off legislation it didn't like - the Budget was passed.
Today, in 2011 Gideon Osborne, heir to the Baronetcy of Ballentaylor, introduced his CSR. With cuts across the board. He claims these cuts are fair but even a brief look at the figures shows that it is the poor - as a % of their income - who will pay the most for these cuts.
Gideon cried crocodile tears about tough decisions but instead has rattled through a series of macho cuts made without any strategic thought. They're cuts for the sake of cutting. They're cuts to appeal to the Murdoch's and the Dacre's. They're cuts that make the poorest in society pay for the genuine creators of this crisis: banks and bankers.
The Conservative Party supported Labour spending plans until 2008. They supported the light regulation of the banking sector (although they like to pretend now that they did neither of these things). Only once the shit hit the fan did they start to flap demanding cuts straight away, which as a lot of economists have suggested, do nothing to help a stumbling economy. They play fast and loose with figures to make the situation look worst than it is and as a result can justify the first real attempts to undo the welfare state.
One of Lloyd-George's great allies in that 1909 Budget was Winston Churchill. He was then a Liberal and President of the Board of Trade. Yes, Winston Churchill. In a letter written in 1899 he had said:
"Capitalism in the form of Trusts has reached a pitch of power which the old economists never contemplated and which excites my most lively terror. Merchant princes are all very well, but if I have anything to say about it, their kingdom should not be of this world...Up to a certain point combination has bought us nothing but good: but we seem to have reached a period where it threatens nothing but evil."
What would Churchill have made of our present situation, where the reckless behaviour of big banks has led to the punishment of the poor, the disabled and the needy? Where Merchant Princes threaten to up sticks and leave the country whenever any kind of tax rises are aimed in their direction and where people like Murdoch can ensure that there is no real effort made to hold people like Osborne to account?
I write this because politicians don't like us to remember history. To be reminder of their past promises, commitments or failures. I write this because it seems to me that Gideon, Dave and Nick have taken the first steps to undo what Lloyd-George and Winston Churchill put together.
Lloyd-George called his budget a 'war budget'. Gideon's is also a war budget but not on the right enemy. He has taken all the weapon's available to him and concentrated his fire on the easy, less mobile enemy: the poor.
"This is a war budget. It is for raising money to wage an implacable war against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty and the wretchedness and human degredation that always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests."
He was putting forward what is known to historians as 'The People's Budget'. It put forward increases in taxation, including a land tax, to pay for the foundations of what would become the Welfare State: free school meals, the first pensions, Labour exchange and National Insurance.
As usual the Conservative Party fought to have these tax increases thrown out, using their House of Lords majority to hold off the changes. The land tax was dropped (and has never been re-introduced) but after fighting another general election in 1910 and passing the 1911 Parliament Bill - to prevent the House of Lords using its Tory majority to fend off legislation it didn't like - the Budget was passed.
Today, in 2011 Gideon Osborne, heir to the Baronetcy of Ballentaylor, introduced his CSR. With cuts across the board. He claims these cuts are fair but even a brief look at the figures shows that it is the poor - as a % of their income - who will pay the most for these cuts.
Gideon cried crocodile tears about tough decisions but instead has rattled through a series of macho cuts made without any strategic thought. They're cuts for the sake of cutting. They're cuts to appeal to the Murdoch's and the Dacre's. They're cuts that make the poorest in society pay for the genuine creators of this crisis: banks and bankers.
The Conservative Party supported Labour spending plans until 2008. They supported the light regulation of the banking sector (although they like to pretend now that they did neither of these things). Only once the shit hit the fan did they start to flap demanding cuts straight away, which as a lot of economists have suggested, do nothing to help a stumbling economy. They play fast and loose with figures to make the situation look worst than it is and as a result can justify the first real attempts to undo the welfare state.
One of Lloyd-George's great allies in that 1909 Budget was Winston Churchill. He was then a Liberal and President of the Board of Trade. Yes, Winston Churchill. In a letter written in 1899 he had said:
"Capitalism in the form of Trusts has reached a pitch of power which the old economists never contemplated and which excites my most lively terror. Merchant princes are all very well, but if I have anything to say about it, their kingdom should not be of this world...Up to a certain point combination has bought us nothing but good: but we seem to have reached a period where it threatens nothing but evil."
What would Churchill have made of our present situation, where the reckless behaviour of big banks has led to the punishment of the poor, the disabled and the needy? Where Merchant Princes threaten to up sticks and leave the country whenever any kind of tax rises are aimed in their direction and where people like Murdoch can ensure that there is no real effort made to hold people like Osborne to account?
I write this because politicians don't like us to remember history. To be reminder of their past promises, commitments or failures. I write this because it seems to me that Gideon, Dave and Nick have taken the first steps to undo what Lloyd-George and Winston Churchill put together.
Lloyd-George called his budget a 'war budget'. Gideon's is also a war budget but not on the right enemy. He has taken all the weapon's available to him and concentrated his fire on the easy, less mobile enemy: the poor.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Quote for Today - Gandhi
When I despair I remember that through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they have appeared invincible, but in the end they always fall.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
First They Came for the Gays
What it is it about homosexuality that scares people so much? It scares people so much that it makes bullying people to the point of suicide acceptable. It scares people so much that they can take absolute leave of their senses. It scares people so much that they can deny humanity to gay people and still think that they’re the good guys.
I’ve been reading some comments from politicians in the United States of America that have just astonished me with their shear brutality. Carl Paladino, is a Republican running for the governorship of New York City. Now I know politicians can be dumb. I know they run for the lowest common denominator in order to win votes as standard practice but this idiot (and there is no politer word to be used) says that gay people should not be allowed to teach in schools. This is apparently acceptable.
Swap the word gay in that sentence for black, Hispanic, Catholic or Jewish and see what would happen. If I were to say that based on the Catholic churches record on paedophilia Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to teach what would that make me? Paladino apparently made his comments at a meeting of Orthodox Jews. Now I don’t want to play fast and loose with the Holocaust but wasn’t it the Nazi’s that said that Jews were unfit to teach. Didn’t anyone in that room not immediately think after Paladino had spoken: “That’s wrong. That’s offensive.”
Perhaps they did.
The thing about homophobia though is that it is sanctioned by God and those who believe in God like to use that as an excuse for preaching bile and hatred about other human beings. I suppose that’s one thing you can use your religion for.
The Old Testament God mentions homosexuality a couple of times. Jesus, oddly, never got around to the big lecture of gayness despite its apparent importance. Jesus is quite scathing about divorce though but you never hear too much about that from the right do you. Its gays, gays and more gays.
These people I call Old Testament Christians, who conveniently skip through Jesus’ ministry and focus on the dark, nasty, spiteful and bitter God of the Old Testament. They’ve taken the Bible and made it into an excuse to hate people to the point of murder. They’ve squeezed the ‘love’ out of God in the name of personal prejudice.
So it seems the only acceptable prejudice left is homophobia. Even most racists have been forced to cover their dislike of the unlike with softer language but homophobia is out there, open and acceptable.
Pastor Neimoller’s poem springs to mind here. People often misunderstand – in my opinion – the poem. I did for a long time. I thought it was about the Holocaust but it isn’t. Not really. It is about the mindset that allows Holocausts to happen. It is about looking the other way as civil rights are removed from the not-we until it is our turn and we’ve got nothing left to hold on to.
It seems now that a stand has to be made. I know people braver and closer to the situation than I are already doing so but let us not let the second decade of the 21st century be the decade when ‘first they came for the gays.’
I’ve been reading some comments from politicians in the United States of America that have just astonished me with their shear brutality. Carl Paladino, is a Republican running for the governorship of New York City. Now I know politicians can be dumb. I know they run for the lowest common denominator in order to win votes as standard practice but this idiot (and there is no politer word to be used) says that gay people should not be allowed to teach in schools. This is apparently acceptable.
Swap the word gay in that sentence for black, Hispanic, Catholic or Jewish and see what would happen. If I were to say that based on the Catholic churches record on paedophilia Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to teach what would that make me? Paladino apparently made his comments at a meeting of Orthodox Jews. Now I don’t want to play fast and loose with the Holocaust but wasn’t it the Nazi’s that said that Jews were unfit to teach. Didn’t anyone in that room not immediately think after Paladino had spoken: “That’s wrong. That’s offensive.”
Perhaps they did.
The thing about homophobia though is that it is sanctioned by God and those who believe in God like to use that as an excuse for preaching bile and hatred about other human beings. I suppose that’s one thing you can use your religion for.
The Old Testament God mentions homosexuality a couple of times. Jesus, oddly, never got around to the big lecture of gayness despite its apparent importance. Jesus is quite scathing about divorce though but you never hear too much about that from the right do you. Its gays, gays and more gays.
These people I call Old Testament Christians, who conveniently skip through Jesus’ ministry and focus on the dark, nasty, spiteful and bitter God of the Old Testament. They’ve taken the Bible and made it into an excuse to hate people to the point of murder. They’ve squeezed the ‘love’ out of God in the name of personal prejudice.
So it seems the only acceptable prejudice left is homophobia. Even most racists have been forced to cover their dislike of the unlike with softer language but homophobia is out there, open and acceptable.
Pastor Neimoller’s poem springs to mind here. People often misunderstand – in my opinion – the poem. I did for a long time. I thought it was about the Holocaust but it isn’t. Not really. It is about the mindset that allows Holocausts to happen. It is about looking the other way as civil rights are removed from the not-we until it is our turn and we’ve got nothing left to hold on to.
It seems now that a stand has to be made. I know people braver and closer to the situation than I are already doing so but let us not let the second decade of the 21st century be the decade when ‘first they came for the gays.’
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Class War
Picture this: A Lab-Lib coalition is in power. In their first 100 days they announce a 5% increase in the top rate of income tax; 'death duties' will be increased, although the threshold for payment increased, Capital gains tax will be increased to reflect a re-nationalisation of the railways as the first step in a quest to re-nationalise all the 'commanding heights' of the economy; a 'second-home' tax is on the cards.
The Prime Minister comes out and says that they have decided to go to war on 'real benefit cheats'. Those companies and individuals who avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Loop-holes will be closed. Government contracts will be unavailable to companies who are headquartered in tax havens. "The real threat to the economy, " says the Prime Minister, "comes from those who can pay but won't pay."
Fox hunting will remain banned and the Police will be expected to enforce the law properly. There will be a new set of laws on media ownership. No one who owns a newspaper would be allowed to own a television station. A windfall tax will be introduced on the profits of banks in order to pay for the cost of bailing them out.
What would the press be saying? They'd be calling it a 'class war'. There would be heated articles about how those people who create wealth will be forced out of the country. Would The Sun be running a campaign to name and shame tax cheats? I suspect not. Partly because Rupert Murdoch and News International would be one of the first names on the list.
So why is no one calling the Con-Dem's cuts a 'class war'? They are clearly and obviously going to affect those people who are worst off. The poorest regions of the country will be hit hardest by what is clear an ideological war on the state dressed up as an urgent need to reduce the deficit.
If there is a class war in this country it is a war by the rich on the poor. Not the other way around. How can the wealthy be afraid? There are 20+ millionaires in the current cabinet. I suspect their understanding of the problems facing the average British citizen, let alone the poorest people out there, is limited.
So can we stop being polite about what's going on and call it what it really is: a class war. The rich have decided to punish the poor for the crimes of the rich. Never in the history of human history has so much been taken from so many by so few.
The Prime Minister comes out and says that they have decided to go to war on 'real benefit cheats'. Those companies and individuals who avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Loop-holes will be closed. Government contracts will be unavailable to companies who are headquartered in tax havens. "The real threat to the economy, " says the Prime Minister, "comes from those who can pay but won't pay."
Fox hunting will remain banned and the Police will be expected to enforce the law properly. There will be a new set of laws on media ownership. No one who owns a newspaper would be allowed to own a television station. A windfall tax will be introduced on the profits of banks in order to pay for the cost of bailing them out.
What would the press be saying? They'd be calling it a 'class war'. There would be heated articles about how those people who create wealth will be forced out of the country. Would The Sun be running a campaign to name and shame tax cheats? I suspect not. Partly because Rupert Murdoch and News International would be one of the first names on the list.
So why is no one calling the Con-Dem's cuts a 'class war'? They are clearly and obviously going to affect those people who are worst off. The poorest regions of the country will be hit hardest by what is clear an ideological war on the state dressed up as an urgent need to reduce the deficit.
If there is a class war in this country it is a war by the rich on the poor. Not the other way around. How can the wealthy be afraid? There are 20+ millionaires in the current cabinet. I suspect their understanding of the problems facing the average British citizen, let alone the poorest people out there, is limited.
So can we stop being polite about what's going on and call it what it really is: a class war. The rich have decided to punish the poor for the crimes of the rich. Never in the history of human history has so much been taken from so many by so few.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Fox Hunting Ban
I should say that I suspect some of my more animal rights supporting friends may be disappointed in me for some of what I am about to write. I am not an animal rights person but I do believe that unnecessary cruelty, whether it is to a human or an animal, should be avoided. To put it mildly.
My objections to fox hunting are specific. I don't have a problem with 'hunting' in the best sense, which involves tracking, stalking and the quick dispatch of the prey. There's a certain amount of admirable skill in that. This is especially true if the hunter intends to eat what he or she catches.
So this blog will focus purely on fox hunting, which requires an animal to be noisily chased for miles before being torn apart by a pack of dogs. That seems to me to be an combination of terror and pain that is both gratuitous and unnecessary.
I'm not stupid enough (or perhaps City enough) to think that foxes are all Basil Brush in the wild. Nature isn't like that. Foxes kill things it is true, although if you listen to pro-fox huntsfolk you'd think foxes were responsible for the death of virtually every lamb or chicken not killed by humans. There might be an argument for managing their numbers but I don't think chasing a creature for miles before allowing it to be torn apart by a pack of hounds is a particularly efficient way of managing a pest problem.
Pro-hunts-folk admit this themselves. They say that not every hunt catches a fox. So why bother? Why not just shot them or poison them? At least try and be humane.
Ah well we're told. The fox's death is pretty quick and painless. Really? You don't think that having been chased for miles across the British countryside that an exhausted and cornered fox doesn't feel something akin to terror. Otherwise why run? Then the fox gets ripped apart by hounds. Which might, just might, be quick but I'm willing to bet it isn't painless. Perhaps we can find a pro-hunt lobbiest willing to run a half-marathon before being set upon by dogs in order to test the theory.
Well, says the fox hunter we don't like it for the cruelty. We like it for the thrill of the chase. There's probably some truth in that. Dashing round the countryside on horseback does look pretty exciting and you probably need to catch something at the end to justify what you've been doing otherwise it just looks like a glorified canter. You can meet up with your friends, have a drink and a chat. Lovely. In which case what is wrong with drag hunting? Because if you need to catch something alive at the end and have it torn apart by hounds then I think what you're in it for isn't the thrill of the chase it is the thrill of the catch. It implies to me that you're in it for the sight of blood, which means you're in it for the killing.
Finally there's the argument that the fox hunting ban is motivated by 'class war'. That it is an attempt to stop the upper classes doing what the upper classes have done since time immemorial. There is a sort of truth in that but it isn't stopping the upper classes for the sake of it. The class element lies more in the fact that fox-hunting managed to survive the elimination of most animal killing 'sports' that came about after the 1835 Cruelty To Animals Act. All we're asking is that the 'toffs' catch-up with what the rest of us have been expected to do for almost two hundred years.
In 1835 the 'Cruelty to Animals Act' banned most sports involving animal cruelty: bear-baiting; dog fighting, cock-fighting and bull-baiting. They didn't mention fox hunting. I wonder why? They banned those sports that didn't involve the wealthy country gentleman riding in his smart coat. They banned those blood sports that were enjoyed mainly by the working-classes. So a belated fox hunting ban just asks for you the fox hunter to catch up with the rest of us. All those blood sports were perceived to be cruel. What is the difference with fox hunting?
I'm sure I'll be accused of not understanding country ways but in that case I think those of you who support fox hunting need to have a word with the 72% of people living in the country who, apparently, don't support the repeal of the ban (according to a site called Conservatives Against Fox Hunting). The national support is 75%, which doesn't imply a huge difference in opinion between urban and country dwellers does it?
As I said at the beginning I don't have a problem with hunting per se. I have a specific problem with fox hunting. I think it is a cruel and vainglorious way to kill an animal. If you have to kill foxes in order to manage their numbers then you should do so in a humane a way as possible. What will happen if the ban is repealed is that once more a group of people will be legally allowed to inflict cruelty on an animal.
So keep the Fox Hunting ban.
My objections to fox hunting are specific. I don't have a problem with 'hunting' in the best sense, which involves tracking, stalking and the quick dispatch of the prey. There's a certain amount of admirable skill in that. This is especially true if the hunter intends to eat what he or she catches.
So this blog will focus purely on fox hunting, which requires an animal to be noisily chased for miles before being torn apart by a pack of dogs. That seems to me to be an combination of terror and pain that is both gratuitous and unnecessary.
I'm not stupid enough (or perhaps City enough) to think that foxes are all Basil Brush in the wild. Nature isn't like that. Foxes kill things it is true, although if you listen to pro-fox huntsfolk you'd think foxes were responsible for the death of virtually every lamb or chicken not killed by humans. There might be an argument for managing their numbers but I don't think chasing a creature for miles before allowing it to be torn apart by a pack of hounds is a particularly efficient way of managing a pest problem.
Pro-hunts-folk admit this themselves. They say that not every hunt catches a fox. So why bother? Why not just shot them or poison them? At least try and be humane.
Ah well we're told. The fox's death is pretty quick and painless. Really? You don't think that having been chased for miles across the British countryside that an exhausted and cornered fox doesn't feel something akin to terror. Otherwise why run? Then the fox gets ripped apart by hounds. Which might, just might, be quick but I'm willing to bet it isn't painless. Perhaps we can find a pro-hunt lobbiest willing to run a half-marathon before being set upon by dogs in order to test the theory.
Well, says the fox hunter we don't like it for the cruelty. We like it for the thrill of the chase. There's probably some truth in that. Dashing round the countryside on horseback does look pretty exciting and you probably need to catch something at the end to justify what you've been doing otherwise it just looks like a glorified canter. You can meet up with your friends, have a drink and a chat. Lovely. In which case what is wrong with drag hunting? Because if you need to catch something alive at the end and have it torn apart by hounds then I think what you're in it for isn't the thrill of the chase it is the thrill of the catch. It implies to me that you're in it for the sight of blood, which means you're in it for the killing.
Finally there's the argument that the fox hunting ban is motivated by 'class war'. That it is an attempt to stop the upper classes doing what the upper classes have done since time immemorial. There is a sort of truth in that but it isn't stopping the upper classes for the sake of it. The class element lies more in the fact that fox-hunting managed to survive the elimination of most animal killing 'sports' that came about after the 1835 Cruelty To Animals Act. All we're asking is that the 'toffs' catch-up with what the rest of us have been expected to do for almost two hundred years.
In 1835 the 'Cruelty to Animals Act' banned most sports involving animal cruelty: bear-baiting; dog fighting, cock-fighting and bull-baiting. They didn't mention fox hunting. I wonder why? They banned those sports that didn't involve the wealthy country gentleman riding in his smart coat. They banned those blood sports that were enjoyed mainly by the working-classes. So a belated fox hunting ban just asks for you the fox hunter to catch up with the rest of us. All those blood sports were perceived to be cruel. What is the difference with fox hunting?
I'm sure I'll be accused of not understanding country ways but in that case I think those of you who support fox hunting need to have a word with the 72% of people living in the country who, apparently, don't support the repeal of the ban (according to a site called Conservatives Against Fox Hunting). The national support is 75%, which doesn't imply a huge difference in opinion between urban and country dwellers does it?
As I said at the beginning I don't have a problem with hunting per se. I have a specific problem with fox hunting. I think it is a cruel and vainglorious way to kill an animal. If you have to kill foxes in order to manage their numbers then you should do so in a humane a way as possible. What will happen if the ban is repealed is that once more a group of people will be legally allowed to inflict cruelty on an animal.
So keep the Fox Hunting ban.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Pob Gove
Here is proof that Pob and Gove are the same person. In fact I would suggest that a period as a children's television star has turned Gove against children so much he is keen to wreck their education:
Friday, July 16, 2010
Brian Coleman: The Unacceptable Face of Tory-ism
Following on from my previous blog, which discussed the hypocrisy of Barnet's Conservative Councillors I'd like to say a few words about Brian Coleman who seems to have become the poster boy for the whacking increases given to himself and his fellow Councillors.
Brian Coleman is not just a Councillor but also serves as London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden.* He's also been helping Boris Johnson gerrymander the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, serving as its Chair. I don't have the time or the space to detail what a confrontational job he's been doing as Chair. A quick glance at the London Fire Brigade Union's Webesite News Section can do that better than I: http://www.london.fbu.org.uk/news/index.php
He's also been keen to avoid transparency regarding his expenses: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23716430-mayor-blasts-senior-tory-for-not-publishing-his-expenses.do
So it would appear he doesn't give a flying toss about upsetting the leadership of his own party both in London and nationally.
Grant Shapps, Con-Dem Local Government Minister was not impressed with Barnet:
"At a time when there's a public sector pay freeze councillors should think twice about rewarding themselves with bumper pay rises. Whether it's a Labour council in Newham or a Conservative one in Barnet, increasing pay when others are losing their jobs both looks and feels wrong. I think councils will struggle to justify such a casual approach to spending taxpayers' money and I urge them to think again."**
But Councillor Coleman isn't bothered. He's quoted by Paul Waugh of the Evening Standard as saying, in response to Mr Shapps:
"My response to Grant Shapps is this: localism, localism, localism We are delivering efficient services and should be trusted with devolved decisions."***
I look forward to Mr Coleman's words being used by Council staff who are clearly doing an excellent job "...delivering efficient services". Mr Coleman will of course only be taking "...the money I am entitled to, no more and no less."***
What a fine attitude to have. He won't take any more than he's ENTITLED to. That would be greedy but he's not going to take any LESS than he's ENTITLED to. Does anyone see what's wrong with that whole sentence? The pathetic nose in the trough stench of it.
Mr Coleman clearly thinks he and his Barnet comrades deserve a bigger share of the pot even as the government cuts services to the bone. They are doing such a great job they DESERVE to be rewarded. I suspect that attitude wouldn't cut much ice coming from the public sector employees expected to actually deliver those services.
However as Mr Coleman is a 'here today and gone tomorrow' politician with a potentially short career he might feel, like a Premier League footballer, that he should earn as much cash as he can before it all goes pear-shaped. After all no one knows what might upset the voters of Barnet.
As a counterpoint to Mr Coleman's huge sense of entitlement I should credit Conservative Councillor Kate Sallinger who voted against the rise saying:
"It was a policy she disagreed with and could not in conscience vote for. Councils should be leading by example. I don't think our example is very good."****
Ms Sallinger's reward for this stance? She was removed from the Committees she served on as a punishment for voting with her conscience. She talks about the vote here: http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/topstories/8272018.I_voted_with_my_conscience__claims_shunned_Tory_councillor/
How lovely these Barnet Tories are and how nice to see the 'contraversial' Brian Coleman leading the way.
*http://www.conservatives.com/People/London_Assembly_Members/Coleman_Brian.aspx
**http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2010/07/grant-shapps-hits-out-at-councillors-in-torycontrolled-barnet-and-labourrun-newham-for-giving-themse.html
***http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2010/07/the-limits-of-localism.html
****http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10635391
Brian Coleman is not just a Councillor but also serves as London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden.* He's also been helping Boris Johnson gerrymander the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, serving as its Chair. I don't have the time or the space to detail what a confrontational job he's been doing as Chair. A quick glance at the London Fire Brigade Union's Webesite News Section can do that better than I: http://www.london.fbu.org.uk/news/index.php
He's also been keen to avoid transparency regarding his expenses: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23716430-mayor-blasts-senior-tory-for-not-publishing-his-expenses.do
So it would appear he doesn't give a flying toss about upsetting the leadership of his own party both in London and nationally.
Grant Shapps, Con-Dem Local Government Minister was not impressed with Barnet:
"At a time when there's a public sector pay freeze councillors should think twice about rewarding themselves with bumper pay rises. Whether it's a Labour council in Newham or a Conservative one in Barnet, increasing pay when others are losing their jobs both looks and feels wrong. I think councils will struggle to justify such a casual approach to spending taxpayers' money and I urge them to think again."**
But Councillor Coleman isn't bothered. He's quoted by Paul Waugh of the Evening Standard as saying, in response to Mr Shapps:
"My response to Grant Shapps is this: localism, localism, localism We are delivering efficient services and should be trusted with devolved decisions."***
I look forward to Mr Coleman's words being used by Council staff who are clearly doing an excellent job "...delivering efficient services". Mr Coleman will of course only be taking "...the money I am entitled to, no more and no less."***
What a fine attitude to have. He won't take any more than he's ENTITLED to. That would be greedy but he's not going to take any LESS than he's ENTITLED to. Does anyone see what's wrong with that whole sentence? The pathetic nose in the trough stench of it.
Mr Coleman clearly thinks he and his Barnet comrades deserve a bigger share of the pot even as the government cuts services to the bone. They are doing such a great job they DESERVE to be rewarded. I suspect that attitude wouldn't cut much ice coming from the public sector employees expected to actually deliver those services.
However as Mr Coleman is a 'here today and gone tomorrow' politician with a potentially short career he might feel, like a Premier League footballer, that he should earn as much cash as he can before it all goes pear-shaped. After all no one knows what might upset the voters of Barnet.
As a counterpoint to Mr Coleman's huge sense of entitlement I should credit Conservative Councillor Kate Sallinger who voted against the rise saying:
"It was a policy she disagreed with and could not in conscience vote for. Councils should be leading by example. I don't think our example is very good."****
Ms Sallinger's reward for this stance? She was removed from the Committees she served on as a punishment for voting with her conscience. She talks about the vote here: http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/topstories/8272018.I_voted_with_my_conscience__claims_shunned_Tory_councillor/
How lovely these Barnet Tories are and how nice to see the 'contraversial' Brian Coleman leading the way.
*http://www.conservatives.com/People/London_Assembly_Members/Coleman_Brian.aspx
**http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2010/07/grant-shapps-hits-out-at-councillors-in-torycontrolled-barnet-and-labourrun-newham-for-giving-themse.html
***http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2010/07/the-limits-of-localism.html
****http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10635391
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
We Are All In This Together But Some Of Us Are More In It Than Others
Conservative politicians, don't you just love 'em. In the process of organising society changing cuts they have claimed 'We are all in this together'. It's a nice sentiment coming from a cabinet of 29 people of whom 26 are millionaires. However I suspect George Osborne might have to have a word with some of his Conservative comrades.
Firstly Boris Johnson's Mayoral term has seen an increase in the number of senior staff at City Hall earning more than £100,000 from 15 to 21 (once the two currently advertised posts are filled). Ironically (or perhaps the word should be insultingly)one of those paid over £100,000 is Nicholas Griffin (no, not that one) who is responsible for cutting costs at City Hall. For this tough, 29 hour a week job, he gets paid £102,750.* Nice work if you can get it.
I'm going to be generous to Boris who claims that the reason for this 6 job jump is the restructing of the GLA. I'll ignore, for the moment, his claim that he was: "...elected on a promise to provide Londoners with better value for money from their taxes."**
But even so it doesn't make a good case for us all being in it together does it?
However the Tories I'm not prepared to be generous to are the fine councillors of Barnet. Barnet has tried to make itself a 'flagship council' for the Tories. As Mike Freer, then leader of Barnet Council and now - unfortunately - MP for Finchley and Golders Green said "Some things will be cheap and cheerful and in other areas we will provide complete services"
You'd think these bastions of the 'cheap and cheerful' would be loathed to increase costs to the taxpayer. But you'd be wrong.
Last night they voted themselves a whacking great pay rise. This rise means that Councillor Lynn Hillan, who leads Barnet Council, could see her allowance increased from £34,909 to £54,227, which is a nice increase in these difficult economic times.
These increases were justified by ignoring - although I believe the official phrase is 'dispensing with' - the local, independent renumeration panel and accepting the London Council's reports recommendations, which were condemned by, er, Con-Dem Local Government Minister Grant Shapps.
Minister Shapp's condemnation was ignored by Barnet Council who have now impressively feathered their nests. In some cases - i.e. Cabinet members - the increases are potentially almost 50%.
Nice work if you can get it Part II.
Remember that Tory watchword WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. It appears to have an Animal Farm style BUT SOME OF US ARE MORE IN IT THAN OTHERS addendum.
Fat cat Counciller Brian Coleman is quoted as saying: "I think residents will be delighted at a sensible scheme within Barnet. The London Councils scheme recognises the work councillors of all parties do."***
Perhaps Brian might want to recognise the work that - oh let's pick Firefighters at random - when talking about pay rises.
I'll leave the last word to John Burgess, UNISON's Barnet branch Chairman as quoted in Hendon+Finchley Times***: “It's disgusting. We were lectured last night about how we have to help cut council services. I've sat in here and listened to how they just voted themselves a massive pay increase and I think council workers are going to go mental. I can't believe what I've just heard.”
* Figure courtesy of Evening Standard who, since Lebedev has taken over have become much more even handed in their handling of Boris.
**Daily Telegraph, 8th May 2008: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1938171/Boris-Johnson-vows-to-end-corruption.html
***http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8270489.Coleman_defends_new_council_allowance_pay_packets/
Firstly Boris Johnson's Mayoral term has seen an increase in the number of senior staff at City Hall earning more than £100,000 from 15 to 21 (once the two currently advertised posts are filled). Ironically (or perhaps the word should be insultingly)one of those paid over £100,000 is Nicholas Griffin (no, not that one) who is responsible for cutting costs at City Hall. For this tough, 29 hour a week job, he gets paid £102,750.* Nice work if you can get it.
I'm going to be generous to Boris who claims that the reason for this 6 job jump is the restructing of the GLA. I'll ignore, for the moment, his claim that he was: "...elected on a promise to provide Londoners with better value for money from their taxes."**
But even so it doesn't make a good case for us all being in it together does it?
However the Tories I'm not prepared to be generous to are the fine councillors of Barnet. Barnet has tried to make itself a 'flagship council' for the Tories. As Mike Freer, then leader of Barnet Council and now - unfortunately - MP for Finchley and Golders Green said "Some things will be cheap and cheerful and in other areas we will provide complete services"
You'd think these bastions of the 'cheap and cheerful' would be loathed to increase costs to the taxpayer. But you'd be wrong.
Last night they voted themselves a whacking great pay rise. This rise means that Councillor Lynn Hillan, who leads Barnet Council, could see her allowance increased from £34,909 to £54,227, which is a nice increase in these difficult economic times.
These increases were justified by ignoring - although I believe the official phrase is 'dispensing with' - the local, independent renumeration panel and accepting the London Council's reports recommendations, which were condemned by, er, Con-Dem Local Government Minister Grant Shapps.
Minister Shapp's condemnation was ignored by Barnet Council who have now impressively feathered their nests. In some cases - i.e. Cabinet members - the increases are potentially almost 50%.
Nice work if you can get it Part II.
Remember that Tory watchword WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. It appears to have an Animal Farm style BUT SOME OF US ARE MORE IN IT THAN OTHERS addendum.
Fat cat Counciller Brian Coleman is quoted as saying: "I think residents will be delighted at a sensible scheme within Barnet. The London Councils scheme recognises the work councillors of all parties do."***
Perhaps Brian might want to recognise the work that - oh let's pick Firefighters at random - when talking about pay rises.
I'll leave the last word to John Burgess, UNISON's Barnet branch Chairman as quoted in Hendon+Finchley Times***: “It's disgusting. We were lectured last night about how we have to help cut council services. I've sat in here and listened to how they just voted themselves a massive pay increase and I think council workers are going to go mental. I can't believe what I've just heard.”
* Figure courtesy of Evening Standard who, since Lebedev has taken over have become much more even handed in their handling of Boris.
**Daily Telegraph, 8th May 2008: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1938171/Boris-Johnson-vows-to-end-corruption.html
***http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8270489.Coleman_defends_new_council_allowance_pay_packets/
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Nye Bevan Quote on The Con-Dem Nation of 1930s
I found this quote in Michael Foot's biography of Aneurin Bevan. It's on p167 of the Paladin Books, 1975 edition, Volume 1 (1897-1945):
"He mocked the Liberals who helped to present the facade of national unity by joining the Government and prophesied their fate: 'the Liberals will be kicked out into the political wilderness and no man will want to know whether they have anything to eat or drink or wear; the job will be done and Great Britain will be handed over to the most reactionary Conservative Government of modern times.'"
I don't know why but that quote just seemed appropriate.
"He mocked the Liberals who helped to present the facade of national unity by joining the Government and prophesied their fate: 'the Liberals will be kicked out into the political wilderness and no man will want to know whether they have anything to eat or drink or wear; the job will be done and Great Britain will be handed over to the most reactionary Conservative Government of modern times.'"
I don't know why but that quote just seemed appropriate.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Churchill on Afghanistan
I have just started reading Carlo D'Este's book: 'Warlord: The Fighting Life of Winston Churchill From Soldier to Statesman'. On page seventy-eight D'Este quotes from a letter from Churchill to his grandmother. The year is 1897, Churchill has been fighting in Afghanistan as part of Sir Bindon Blood's Malakand Field Force. It is worth quoting:
"I wish I could come to the conclusion that all this barbarity - all these losses - all this expenditure - had resulted in a permenent settlement being obtained, I do not think however that anything has been done - that will not have to be done again."
Written in 1897 I suspect Churchill might be disappointed to learn how correct he was. A lot of blood has been spilt and money has been spent since 1897 reinforcing Churchill's doubts.
"I wish I could come to the conclusion that all this barbarity - all these losses - all this expenditure - had resulted in a permenent settlement being obtained, I do not think however that anything has been done - that will not have to be done again."
Written in 1897 I suspect Churchill might be disappointed to learn how correct he was. A lot of blood has been spilt and money has been spent since 1897 reinforcing Churchill's doubts.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
When Murdoch Met Cameron
I've been given a transcript of Rupert Murdoch's visit to Number 10:
Murdoch: "Dave. Nice house. Bit small. How's it hangin'?"
David: "O it's..."
Murdoch: "Yeah, thought so. Where's Nick?"
David: "O he's..."
Murdoch: "Is he. Well let's get down to business."
David: "OK...well.."
Murdoch: "Look my boy James almost f****d up. I told him to be f*****g careful but he was determined to give you all the help you needed. Even by my standards we went a bit f*****g OTT. But that's water under the bridge now boy. You're hear. In power. Even if it does need the Lib-Dems to bail you out."
David: "Well..."
Murdoch: "So...what I want to know now is what I'm getting in return mate. I mean I don't do anything for anyone without some kind of back scratching in return. Not even you mate."
David: "Well..."
Murdoch: "I'm not getting any f*****g younger so let's cut to the chase. I've got a list here somewhere. First: f*****g OfCom. Those bastards are trying to ruin me. Get them off my back. Second: the f*****g BBC. Commie poofs the lot of them. Let's break the bastards up. Flog off some of the f*****g thing to the private sector. Cut the licence fee so they can't really compete. O and get all that free content of the f*****g web. I don't understand it but its not making me enough f*****g money. What's the point in charging for the Times if the bloody BBC can put news and sport up for free. Thirdly: Let's get rid of these silly rules about balance in the news. If I wanted balance I'd buy the f*****g BBC. I want Sky News to be able to say what it likes about who it likes without being worried about fairness. It works for me in the States so why the f**k not here. Sound fair enough Dave?"
David: "Well I..."
Murdoch: "Good. Well thanks for the chat. I'll be keeping a close f*****g eye on things from now on and you wouldn't want me getting hostile now would you. I mean coalitions are notoriously difficult to keep together. There's a few bastards in your party that could stir up a bit of trouble if we wanted them to."
David: "Well there's..."
Murdooch: "Anyway mate. I've got to go. I've got to have a word with James and Rebekah. You know if you want a job doing properly..."
*Recording ends*
So there you have it. Exclusive.
Murdoch: "Dave. Nice house. Bit small. How's it hangin'?"
David: "O it's..."
Murdoch: "Yeah, thought so. Where's Nick?"
David: "O he's..."
Murdoch: "Is he. Well let's get down to business."
David: "OK...well.."
Murdoch: "Look my boy James almost f****d up. I told him to be f*****g careful but he was determined to give you all the help you needed. Even by my standards we went a bit f*****g OTT. But that's water under the bridge now boy. You're hear. In power. Even if it does need the Lib-Dems to bail you out."
David: "Well..."
Murdoch: "So...what I want to know now is what I'm getting in return mate. I mean I don't do anything for anyone without some kind of back scratching in return. Not even you mate."
David: "Well..."
Murdoch: "I'm not getting any f*****g younger so let's cut to the chase. I've got a list here somewhere. First: f*****g OfCom. Those bastards are trying to ruin me. Get them off my back. Second: the f*****g BBC. Commie poofs the lot of them. Let's break the bastards up. Flog off some of the f*****g thing to the private sector. Cut the licence fee so they can't really compete. O and get all that free content of the f*****g web. I don't understand it but its not making me enough f*****g money. What's the point in charging for the Times if the bloody BBC can put news and sport up for free. Thirdly: Let's get rid of these silly rules about balance in the news. If I wanted balance I'd buy the f*****g BBC. I want Sky News to be able to say what it likes about who it likes without being worried about fairness. It works for me in the States so why the f**k not here. Sound fair enough Dave?"
David: "Well I..."
Murdoch: "Good. Well thanks for the chat. I'll be keeping a close f*****g eye on things from now on and you wouldn't want me getting hostile now would you. I mean coalitions are notoriously difficult to keep together. There's a few bastards in your party that could stir up a bit of trouble if we wanted them to."
David: "Well there's..."
Murdooch: "Anyway mate. I've got to go. I've got to have a word with James and Rebekah. You know if you want a job doing properly..."
*Recording ends*
So there you have it. Exclusive.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Drawing Wrong Conclusions
I notice, in the battle to be next leader of the Labour Party, the arguement is being raised by a number of the potential leadership candidates that 'we lost the election because we failed to connect...' and that immigration is one of those issues that Labour failed to see as a genuine concern.
I think there is an element of truth in this, but only a element. There were other reasons why the Labour Party lost the election: the economy; parliamentary sleaze - which stuck to them more than it did to the Conservatives or the Lib-Dems; the perception that under Labour we were less free ; that the party was not listening and could not bring itself to change policies that were clearly wrong headed, e.g. ID Cards ; that the traditional Labour voters saw themselves as abandoned in a dash for the Daily Mail reading, middle-classes.
If you were a Trade Unionist why would you vote Labour except out of historical loyalty. The Labour Party behaved like it was embarrassed to be seen with you. No real attempt was made to protect the rights of workers. Whenever it came to a clash between the employer and employee the Labour Party would claim that it could not get involved. The Labour Party waved the sale of the Post Office about. The Education system and the NHS were increasingly opened up to 'the market' as if the market was the answer.
The Banking Crisis shows what happens to a market left to its own devices. In fact the Banking Crisis should be used to hammer every sector that says 'we want less regulation...let us regulate ourselves.' Self-regulation is often no regulation. Everything ticks along nicely until there is a crisis.
The Labour Party should be prepared to press for regulation where needed.
It should not however be the party that reduces our civil liberties. ID Cards, Biometric Passports, the DNA database, CCTV etc have all become memorials to a Labour Party that seemed bent on proving that the best way to protect our way of life from terror was to take away our rights.
In my view a genuine democracy is always at risk. That risk of attack is what we accept when we say we believe ourselves to be citizens of a free society. Yes, the Police have a job to do but that job should always be ring-fenced by the rule of law and that should always err on the side of freedom.
So yes that means letting unpleasent people who 'hate us' say want the want to say. That means letting people stay in this country who appear to hate this country because if they were to be extradited they would be tortured and killed. That means protecting the rights of people who if positions were reversed would deny us those rights. Freedom is a risk.
That's why I think that the reason the Labour Party lost is more complicated than 'immigration'. Immigration is an issue but we need to re-frame the arguement so that it becomes about the use to which immigrants are put. How employers use them to drive down wages, to de-unionise and to try to get a workforce that is not told its rights.
Housing is also an issue. The time has come for the Labour Party to drive for another great Council House building programme so that the poorest can live in better conditions, in safety and in health. The more 'social housing' we make available the better for everyone.
Let's go back to the 1945 manifesto: Housing, Healthcare, Education, Transport.
If we are going to win it won't be as next Labour, new Labour or old Labour. It'll be as The Labour Party. Let's not be afraid to go out and sell our beliefs.
Hey and maybe, just maybe we can mention the word socialism again (but let's not get too excited)
I think there is an element of truth in this, but only a element. There were other reasons why the Labour Party lost the election: the economy; parliamentary sleaze - which stuck to them more than it did to the Conservatives or the Lib-Dems; the perception that under Labour we were less free ; that the party was not listening and could not bring itself to change policies that were clearly wrong headed, e.g. ID Cards ; that the traditional Labour voters saw themselves as abandoned in a dash for the Daily Mail reading, middle-classes.
If you were a Trade Unionist why would you vote Labour except out of historical loyalty. The Labour Party behaved like it was embarrassed to be seen with you. No real attempt was made to protect the rights of workers. Whenever it came to a clash between the employer and employee the Labour Party would claim that it could not get involved. The Labour Party waved the sale of the Post Office about. The Education system and the NHS were increasingly opened up to 'the market' as if the market was the answer.
The Banking Crisis shows what happens to a market left to its own devices. In fact the Banking Crisis should be used to hammer every sector that says 'we want less regulation...let us regulate ourselves.' Self-regulation is often no regulation. Everything ticks along nicely until there is a crisis.
The Labour Party should be prepared to press for regulation where needed.
It should not however be the party that reduces our civil liberties. ID Cards, Biometric Passports, the DNA database, CCTV etc have all become memorials to a Labour Party that seemed bent on proving that the best way to protect our way of life from terror was to take away our rights.
In my view a genuine democracy is always at risk. That risk of attack is what we accept when we say we believe ourselves to be citizens of a free society. Yes, the Police have a job to do but that job should always be ring-fenced by the rule of law and that should always err on the side of freedom.
So yes that means letting unpleasent people who 'hate us' say want the want to say. That means letting people stay in this country who appear to hate this country because if they were to be extradited they would be tortured and killed. That means protecting the rights of people who if positions were reversed would deny us those rights. Freedom is a risk.
That's why I think that the reason the Labour Party lost is more complicated than 'immigration'. Immigration is an issue but we need to re-frame the arguement so that it becomes about the use to which immigrants are put. How employers use them to drive down wages, to de-unionise and to try to get a workforce that is not told its rights.
Housing is also an issue. The time has come for the Labour Party to drive for another great Council House building programme so that the poorest can live in better conditions, in safety and in health. The more 'social housing' we make available the better for everyone.
Let's go back to the 1945 manifesto: Housing, Healthcare, Education, Transport.
If we are going to win it won't be as next Labour, new Labour or old Labour. It'll be as The Labour Party. Let's not be afraid to go out and sell our beliefs.
Hey and maybe, just maybe we can mention the word socialism again (but let's not get too excited)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Trade Unions
I heard something particularly depressing today. In amongst the usual stuff: '...there are people desperate for a job in the current climate so why can't employees of Company X be grateful just for having a job...' ; 'I don't think people who can inconvenience other people - (read INCONVENIENCE ME for that) should be allowed to go on strike' I heard the following 'I can't go on strike...so why should they (and it doesn't matter at this point who 'THEY' are) be allowed to strike?
I pointed out that surely the question should be 'Why am I NOT allowed to strike?' or 'Why am I NOT allowed to be in a Trade Union' but the response was Trade Union's are for lazy people who don't want to do a proper days work. To some of you this might be a wee bit of a shock. If it is...you need to move into the real world.
Trade Unionism in this country touches the employees of the public sector (or companies that used to be in the public sector). It barely touches people who work in small, privately owned companies. In fact a lot of those people might find it a little odd. After all I deal directly with my employer...why bother with a Trade Union?
I asked a colleague, 'Would we not be stronger if we could withdraw our labour together' and they said 'Why would I do that? I've always done alright talking to [The Boss] directly. And truth be told they probably have. Whether the rest of the company has is a moot point.
The point of this late night ramble is to point out that Trade Unions have a long way to go in this country before they can convince people of their benefits, which means reaching into the Private Sector not just the Public. It means pushing the current government - as well as the new, improved Labour Party leader, for legislation that makes it easier for employees to join a Trade Union, to have it recognised by the employer and to protect those who work for Trade Unions from victimisation and from losing their jobs through strike action.
There is, in British law, no 'Right To Strike'. Perhaps the time has come to establish one. Perhaps Trade Unions need to stop letting good Trade Unionists lose their jobs but 'win the Tribunal'. Perhaps Trade Unionism should stop apologising for the past and start hammering away at the future.
I pointed out that surely the question should be 'Why am I NOT allowed to strike?' or 'Why am I NOT allowed to be in a Trade Union' but the response was Trade Union's are for lazy people who don't want to do a proper days work. To some of you this might be a wee bit of a shock. If it is...you need to move into the real world.
Trade Unionism in this country touches the employees of the public sector (or companies that used to be in the public sector). It barely touches people who work in small, privately owned companies. In fact a lot of those people might find it a little odd. After all I deal directly with my employer...why bother with a Trade Union?
I asked a colleague, 'Would we not be stronger if we could withdraw our labour together' and they said 'Why would I do that? I've always done alright talking to [The Boss] directly. And truth be told they probably have. Whether the rest of the company has is a moot point.
The point of this late night ramble is to point out that Trade Unions have a long way to go in this country before they can convince people of their benefits, which means reaching into the Private Sector not just the Public. It means pushing the current government - as well as the new, improved Labour Party leader, for legislation that makes it easier for employees to join a Trade Union, to have it recognised by the employer and to protect those who work for Trade Unions from victimisation and from losing their jobs through strike action.
There is, in British law, no 'Right To Strike'. Perhaps the time has come to establish one. Perhaps Trade Unions need to stop letting good Trade Unionists lose their jobs but 'win the Tribunal'. Perhaps Trade Unionism should stop apologising for the past and start hammering away at the future.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Labour Party: What Next?
So farewell Gordon Brown who, having been on the receiving end of personal abuse only really equalled by Neil Kinnock, ceased to be leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minster.
His exit and the formation of a Tory-Liberal Coalition poses some interesting questions for the Labour Party. I see no point in rushing a leadership election but there does need to be some kind of 'fight' for the job. Another coronation is not going to help anyone, even though I'm beginning to sense a desire to parachute a Milliband straight into the job. Let's have a genuine chance to debate some of the issues facing the Labour Party moving forward.
My view is that the party needs to build itself a distinctive identity. The party needs to move away from its recent past. Abandon this unnecessary support for ID Cards and the like. It needs to get out amongst the people and reconnect. At every level. From prospective Council candidates to Shadow Cabinet Ministers. There needs to be a real attempt to re-build a party who focus is on social justice and on representing those people who will not feel that any other party can represent them.
Undo the ties of New Labour, which offers nothing substantially different to a Tory-Lib coalition. Indeed some of the policies which a Tory-Lib coalition will put forward appear more radical than anything the Labour Party itself would have done had they retained power.
Now is the time to look at every policy. To question everything. To abandon those policies that reflect an experiment that failed. How do you improve education and access to education? How do you improve the NHS? How do you manage an economy where the whims of the City are more important than the needs of the people? What kind of armed forces do we want or need? What can governments do to create and protect jobs? What kind of parliament and electoral system do we want?
The questions are endless. What I believe to be a absolute truth is that the solutions to these questions will not be found with New Labour answers. We need new thinking connected to the basic premise that the job of the Labour Party is to help raise people up, rather than hold them down. To free people from poverty, hardship and ignorance.
There is time to fundamentally re-think what the Labour Party stands for and what its mission is moving forward. A vision for government and country.
On the other hand we can just appoint a Blair-Clegg-Cameron soundalike and drift along in opposition, sniping at the Tory-Libs until 2015 when the Tories win a proper majority.
Let's get out there and let's build a new, better Labour Party.
His exit and the formation of a Tory-Liberal Coalition poses some interesting questions for the Labour Party. I see no point in rushing a leadership election but there does need to be some kind of 'fight' for the job. Another coronation is not going to help anyone, even though I'm beginning to sense a desire to parachute a Milliband straight into the job. Let's have a genuine chance to debate some of the issues facing the Labour Party moving forward.
My view is that the party needs to build itself a distinctive identity. The party needs to move away from its recent past. Abandon this unnecessary support for ID Cards and the like. It needs to get out amongst the people and reconnect. At every level. From prospective Council candidates to Shadow Cabinet Ministers. There needs to be a real attempt to re-build a party who focus is on social justice and on representing those people who will not feel that any other party can represent them.
Undo the ties of New Labour, which offers nothing substantially different to a Tory-Lib coalition. Indeed some of the policies which a Tory-Lib coalition will put forward appear more radical than anything the Labour Party itself would have done had they retained power.
Now is the time to look at every policy. To question everything. To abandon those policies that reflect an experiment that failed. How do you improve education and access to education? How do you improve the NHS? How do you manage an economy where the whims of the City are more important than the needs of the people? What kind of armed forces do we want or need? What can governments do to create and protect jobs? What kind of parliament and electoral system do we want?
The questions are endless. What I believe to be a absolute truth is that the solutions to these questions will not be found with New Labour answers. We need new thinking connected to the basic premise that the job of the Labour Party is to help raise people up, rather than hold them down. To free people from poverty, hardship and ignorance.
There is time to fundamentally re-think what the Labour Party stands for and what its mission is moving forward. A vision for government and country.
On the other hand we can just appoint a Blair-Clegg-Cameron soundalike and drift along in opposition, sniping at the Tory-Libs until 2015 when the Tories win a proper majority.
Let's get out there and let's build a new, better Labour Party.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Lessons to Be Learned
So the election is over but the fallout continues. With no one being able to claim a genuine mandate - whatever spin Cameron tries to put on it - the games begin. It is looking like a Con-Lib coalition at the moment but if I were Clegg I'd make a referendum on PR the minimum requirement for any agreement. Let's face it the Tories will be looking to go for another election (and a proper majority for them) as fast as possible. So get that referendum Nick. It's your last best hope.
One thing I wanted to say - and it connects with my previous post about the UKIP gentleman - is that the one key lesson I would have learned is that nothing beats hard work on the ground, meeting and listening to your constituents. Margaret Hodge's success in Barking (and the total meltdown of the BNP in the Council elections in Barking and Dagenham) can to a great degree be put down to getting in amongst the electorate, connecting with them, listening to them and trying to articulate their problems rather than standing aloof peddling the party line.
All the talk post-Obama was how the internet could revolutionise elections and there is some truth in that but in the end internet forums, Facebook groups and Twitter campaigns can fool people into thinking that they are taking real action. Yes, these things have a publicity effect. Yes, they can be genuinely effective in raising money and for contacting those in authority but in electoral terms nothing is going to better being on the ground talking to and meeting your electorate.
Action in the real world, supported by the web is the way forward. So my advice to the Labour Party (for what it is worth) is make sure all your new MPs, all your new Councillors have the Twitter accounts, their Facebook pages and e-mails but above all get them to get out and meet people. Become School Governors, meet parents, meet teachers, go to your local pubs, go to meetings...yes it'll eat into your life but if you want to be re-elected and if you want to win elections that, more than anything, will do the job.
One thing I wanted to say - and it connects with my previous post about the UKIP gentleman - is that the one key lesson I would have learned is that nothing beats hard work on the ground, meeting and listening to your constituents. Margaret Hodge's success in Barking (and the total meltdown of the BNP in the Council elections in Barking and Dagenham) can to a great degree be put down to getting in amongst the electorate, connecting with them, listening to them and trying to articulate their problems rather than standing aloof peddling the party line.
All the talk post-Obama was how the internet could revolutionise elections and there is some truth in that but in the end internet forums, Facebook groups and Twitter campaigns can fool people into thinking that they are taking real action. Yes, these things have a publicity effect. Yes, they can be genuinely effective in raising money and for contacting those in authority but in electoral terms nothing is going to better being on the ground talking to and meeting your electorate.
Action in the real world, supported by the web is the way forward. So my advice to the Labour Party (for what it is worth) is make sure all your new MPs, all your new Councillors have the Twitter accounts, their Facebook pages and e-mails but above all get them to get out and meet people. Become School Governors, meet parents, meet teachers, go to your local pubs, go to meetings...yes it'll eat into your life but if you want to be re-elected and if you want to win elections that, more than anything, will do the job.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Phillipa Stroud Silence
Did you know that there's a Tory candidate that believes gay people can be cured by prayer? She's a good Christian apparently so that kind of thinking is perfectly acceptable. In fact so acceptable is Stroud that she's been working closely with Cameron on issues around the family. Of course it would be THE FAMILY (by which the Tories mean married hetrosexuals. Remember if you ain't got a certificate your not a FAMILY.)
This isn't the place for me to rant about why Christians seem to fixate so much on what the Old Testament says and ignore the New Testament. After all Jesus seems to have forgotten to mention the gay thing, even though it is really important. Nor is it a place to rant about how homophobia seems to be the acceptable prejudice in this country.
No, what I want to know is why almost all the press are silent on this topic. Do they think that nutty Christian prayer groups helping 'the mentally disturbed' are OK? Do they think that homophobia is OK? Perhaps they do. I wouldn't put anything past James Murdoch and his compadres.
Of course we all know why they don't want to cover it. Because it is an embarrassment to cuddly Dave Cameron and his 'new' Conservatives. No one wants to remind people that the Tories are the party of Clause 28. The party that represents the Britain of the 1950s, not the Britain of the 21st century.
So not a whisper on Phillipa Stroud from the Sun, The Mail, the Express, the Times, the Telegraph, Sky or the BBC*. Hands up who is surprised?
*And don't get me started on the pathetic rolling over of the BBC in this election pushing the Lib-Dem + Tory agenda's. Anyone who thinks the BBC has a left-wing agenda should now shut the fuck up.
This isn't the place for me to rant about why Christians seem to fixate so much on what the Old Testament says and ignore the New Testament. After all Jesus seems to have forgotten to mention the gay thing, even though it is really important. Nor is it a place to rant about how homophobia seems to be the acceptable prejudice in this country.
No, what I want to know is why almost all the press are silent on this topic. Do they think that nutty Christian prayer groups helping 'the mentally disturbed' are OK? Do they think that homophobia is OK? Perhaps they do. I wouldn't put anything past James Murdoch and his compadres.
Of course we all know why they don't want to cover it. Because it is an embarrassment to cuddly Dave Cameron and his 'new' Conservatives. No one wants to remind people that the Tories are the party of Clause 28. The party that represents the Britain of the 1950s, not the Britain of the 21st century.
So not a whisper on Phillipa Stroud from the Sun, The Mail, the Express, the Times, the Telegraph, Sky or the BBC*. Hands up who is surprised?
*And don't get me started on the pathetic rolling over of the BBC in this election pushing the Lib-Dem + Tory agenda's. Anyone who thinks the BBC has a left-wing agenda should now shut the fuck up.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
A Lesson From UKIP
I was sitting outside The Griffin after Brentford's 1-1 draw with Yeovil yesterday when the UKIP PPC for Brentford+Isleworth, Jason Hargreaves, appeared. He was - shock, horror - talking to potential voters on a face-to-face basis.
Now I'm don't agree with UKIP's views on a number of things + having read through the Mini-Manifesto Jason gave me I could probably give you an exact count of those things I disagree with them on but the fact that he was on the ground talking to people, even people like me who clearly disagreed with him, gets people's attention. The bigger parties take their voters for granted. This wards Labour. This one is Tory. This road's Red. This one is blue but Jason's lesson - and I saw it working - was that the best way to get people to vote for you is to get on the ground and talk to them. In the places they work, drink and talk.
Now I can hear the sniffier amongst you suggesting that football fans are obviously ideal fodder for UKIP. But they are not. Not everyone agreed with his views but they all gave him credit for making an effort.
So if I were the Tory or Labour strategist I'd get your people on the ground. Talk to people. Jason's time in the Griffin probably got him more votes than the two massive anti-Gordon Brown poster that pollute the Cricklewood Broadway will get the Tories.
Yes, you'll get some abuse. Yes, you'll get some awkward questions but if you are too frightened to talk to your electorate face-to-face why are you in politics at all? Politics is nothing if it is not an attempt to change people's lives for the better. However you think that might be done.
Unless of course politics is the only thing you know. You've done student politics, local council and now you've got your shot at national politics. Then what do you know of your electorate?
To paraphrase 'What do they know of England that only politics know?'
Now I'm don't agree with UKIP's views on a number of things + having read through the Mini-Manifesto Jason gave me I could probably give you an exact count of those things I disagree with them on but the fact that he was on the ground talking to people, even people like me who clearly disagreed with him, gets people's attention. The bigger parties take their voters for granted. This wards Labour. This one is Tory. This road's Red. This one is blue but Jason's lesson - and I saw it working - was that the best way to get people to vote for you is to get on the ground and talk to them. In the places they work, drink and talk.
Now I can hear the sniffier amongst you suggesting that football fans are obviously ideal fodder for UKIP. But they are not. Not everyone agreed with his views but they all gave him credit for making an effort.
So if I were the Tory or Labour strategist I'd get your people on the ground. Talk to people. Jason's time in the Griffin probably got him more votes than the two massive anti-Gordon Brown poster that pollute the Cricklewood Broadway will get the Tories.
Yes, you'll get some abuse. Yes, you'll get some awkward questions but if you are too frightened to talk to your electorate face-to-face why are you in politics at all? Politics is nothing if it is not an attempt to change people's lives for the better. However you think that might be done.
Unless of course politics is the only thing you know. You've done student politics, local council and now you've got your shot at national politics. Then what do you know of your electorate?
To paraphrase 'What do they know of England that only politics know?'
Monday, January 18, 2010
Teaching + Tories
It is perfectly possible that David Cameron isn't just a marketing ploy by the Tories to - finally - get themselves back into power. He might have some genuine policies. He might even mean what he says. I'd like to think that having become leader of the Conservative Party it was more about merit than the fact he was an Old Etonian Oxbridge blanidate selected as the cuddly face of a clapped out party desperately in need of another stint in government.
But then they come out with some bollocks sound-bite led non-policy policy that implies you can only teach kids if you've got a decent degree from a good university. Heaven forbid you might be a good teacher regardless. Or that you might have come late to the realisation that teaching was the right job for you. If you went to a lesser known University (or heaven forbid what used to be a polytechnic) then teaching is clearly not for you. Go away and do something else instead and let those people who deserve it teach the kids. Perhaps those old Etonian Oxford educated chaps might get involved when they've retired from running the Tory party.
There are many things wrong with the education system in this country: too many targets; too much paperwork and a focus not on education in the broadest and best sense but on churning out grades. There is a problem with finding and retaining GOOD teachers.
But it shouldn't matter what university or what undergraduate degree grade someone got. What should matter is whether they can teach. I'm all in favour of improving the quality of the teaching profession; of encouraging good teachers into difficult schools but not of thi kind of arbitrary 'if they've got a 2:1 from a proper uni then they'll be a shoe-in' policy.
The joke used to be if you can't do, teach. Perhaps the time has come to change it: if you can't do go into politics and screw it up for everyone else.
But then they come out with some bollocks sound-bite led non-policy policy that implies you can only teach kids if you've got a decent degree from a good university. Heaven forbid you might be a good teacher regardless. Or that you might have come late to the realisation that teaching was the right job for you. If you went to a lesser known University (or heaven forbid what used to be a polytechnic) then teaching is clearly not for you. Go away and do something else instead and let those people who deserve it teach the kids. Perhaps those old Etonian Oxford educated chaps might get involved when they've retired from running the Tory party.
There are many things wrong with the education system in this country: too many targets; too much paperwork and a focus not on education in the broadest and best sense but on churning out grades. There is a problem with finding and retaining GOOD teachers.
But it shouldn't matter what university or what undergraduate degree grade someone got. What should matter is whether they can teach. I'm all in favour of improving the quality of the teaching profession; of encouraging good teachers into difficult schools but not of thi kind of arbitrary 'if they've got a 2:1 from a proper uni then they'll be a shoe-in' policy.
The joke used to be if you can't do, teach. Perhaps the time has come to change it: if you can't do go into politics and screw it up for everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)